JONES

v.

NEW JERSEY

Citator

Cited By

• State v. Williams, 434 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
  …ning, therefore, was not crucial in the context in which it is urged in this case, [footnote omitted] 492 F. 2d at 739. Accord State v. Carter, 296 N.C. 344, 250 S.E. 2d 263 (1979); see Carter v. Garrison, 656 F. 2d 68 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 952, 102 S.Ct. 1458, 71 L.Ed.2d 668 (1982); State v. Falby, [*970] 187 Conn. 6, 444 A. 2d 213 (1982); contra, Commonwealth v. Dixon, supra.8 Since the only factor9 relied upon below 10 to suppress the confession did not, for these reasons, justify that…
• Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1987)
  …terrogation is one factor to be considered in determining whether a waiver of the Fifth Amendment privilege is valid. United States v. Burger, 728 F. 2d 140, 141 (CA2 1984); Carter v. Garrison, 656 F. 2d 68, 70 (CA4 1981) (per curiam), cert. denied, 455 U. S. 952 (1982); United States v. McCrary, 643 F. 2d 323, 328 (CA5 1981). Other Courts of Appeals have found that a suspect’s awareness of the subject matter of interrogation is not a relevant factor in determining the validity of a Miranda waiver. United St…
• United States v. Tibor Burger, 728 F.2d 140 (2d Cir. 1984)
  …r answered in an exculpatory fashion. Moreover, there is no Miranda requirement that law enforcement officers must inform a suspect of the crime they are investigating. Carter v. Garrison, 656 F. 2d 68, 70 (4th Cir.1981) (per curiam), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 952, 102 S.Ct. 1458, 71 L.Ed.2d 668 (1982). As pointed out in Collins v. Brierly, 492 F. 2d 735, 739 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 877, 95 S.Ct. 140, 42 L.Ed.2d 116 (1974), the signing of a Miranda waiver does not compel a suspect to answer questi…